129 réponses à ce sujet

[SkittlesKat96]

My opinions (or in other words how my Shepard feels about) of these groups:

Alliance - I'm reasonably pro-human and pro-Alliance. I'm not up to the point that I support the Shanxi party and want human dominance and/or want to push aliens around or start genociding them though.

Cerberus - A bit too shady for me to be honest. I can live with their experiments and harsh methods (although I dislike it a bit) but I'm not a big fan of TIM's ideas for human dominance, I wish he could elaborate on his real plans and motives, and give details. So yeah, I just don't think I trust him very much.

Council - I don't like how the Council is run and I don't like how the Council has acted in ME 1 and ME 2, the Council and the way the Council works is ridiculous. Sure maybe they could be worse but it should be better and I have a feeling the Council's stupidity will really shine in ME 3. 

Turian Hierarchy - I'm not sure what to make of them. Something about what they did to the Humans seems really wrong and messed up and I don't like how a lot of Turians still hate humans (Saren and the Turian council member being two of that type.)

Quarians and the Geth - The whole Geth vs. Quarian argument is too confusing for me, overall though I think the Quarians aren't that bad and I think they deserve their home worlds back. I think a peaceful resolution should also be reached, and I don't care if there are Quarians against that.

Salarians - As a species Salarians are really intelligent and likeable.

Volus and Elcor - They are pretty cool.

Asari - Not really sure what to think of them.

Those are all the groups I can bother mentioning.

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 22 septembre 2011 - 09:18 .

[SandTrout]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

The salarians are a good ally to have as well but personally I'd rather be best buddies with the group with the most dreadnoughts and the most naval firepower. The FCW was in the past, time to move on.

Turians still haven't changed that tactic.

 Evidence?

Doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those claiming that they have changed, which we have no evidence of.

[TobyHasEyes]

SandTrout wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

The salarians are a good ally to have as well but personally I'd rather be best buddies with the group with the most dreadnoughts and the most naval firepower. The FCW was in the past, time to move on.

Turians still haven't changed that tactic.

 Evidence?

Doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those claiming that they have changed, which we have no evidence of.

 The burden of proof isn't a license to make unproven statements as fact; if I was seeking to prove that their tactic had changed then the burden would be on me

 The point is that we do not know, even when the 'burden of proof' is invoked in defence of a claim it doesn't allow the claim to retain the status of fact

[SkittlesKat96]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

The salarians are a good ally to have as well but personally I'd rather be best buddies with the group with the most dreadnoughts and the most naval firepower. The FCW was in the past, time to move on.

Turians still haven't changed that tactic.

 Evidence?

Doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those claiming that they have changed, which we have no evidence of.

 The burden of proof isn't a license to make unproven statements as fact; if I was seeking to prove that their tactic had changed then the burden would be on me

 The point is that we do not know, even when the 'burden of proof' is invoked in defence of a claim it doesn't allow the claim to retain the status of fact

[SandTrout]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 The burden of proof isn't a license to make unproven statements as fact; if I was seeking to prove that their tactic had changed then the burden would be on me

 The point is that we do not know, even when the 'burden of proof' is invoked in defence of a claim it doesn't allow the claim to retain the status of fact

The point is that we know that the Turians did exercise the use of force in an act of conquest upon first contact with Humanity only 40 years ago. We have 0 evidence to suggest that there has been any meaningful change in their culture in that respect since then. It is therefore a reasonable premise of logic to use unless it can be refuted, which it has not been.

You are effectively asking us to prove that something hasn't changed, which is to attempt to prove a negative. All the evidence that we need to make our point is the complete lack of evidence that the Turians have changed at all.

Modifié par SandTrout, 22 septembre 2011 - 01:11 .

[snfonseka]

allegiance? huh?

[darkhorsedan]

I see the opinion of a lot of Shepard's is that they are not pleased with their treatment by the council and the alliance in ME2 but perhaps look at it from their perspective. Shepard turns up out of the blue and arrives in an illegal replica of an alliance vessel that has been made by an organisation that the alliance and the council regards as terrorists. That would be like landing in Washington in a al-qaeda made replica of the Air Force 1 and asking the US military to join forces with you and al-qaeda. Shepard might have had more luck distancing himself from Cerberus first before asking the Council and Alliance for help.

On another note, do we really know how effective the council are at what they do in the grand scheme of things? Most of what we see them do is only what effects us the player and the story, which is mainly in the areas of galactic security (fair enough they could do more to take the Reaper threat seriously in this regards). But we don't know how good or bad they are at the regular business of government. In Revelations there is a bit where Ambassador Goyle reflects on the dealings of the council and she does note for the most part their decisions are fair and the level of bias to the main 3 races is minimal (I wish I had the book to hand for a more accurate quote).

[The Elder King]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Humanity through Cerberus.

We'll forge our own paths in the galaxy and we won't be capable of doing it peacefully, we'll have to step on a few toes and shake a few hives but there's an end where humanity will rule. Shepard might not live to see that day, though he'll try his hardest to establish that humanity won't be a puppet to the Asari like they've done to the Turians and the Salarians.

It's sad that (most likely) we can't choose to side with Cerberus in ME3. What Bioware is doing with Cerberus in ME3 is probably the my major problem with the game. I'd liked to have the possibility to choose between the two major human organizations in ME3.
Anyway, I have two main Shepard. A Paragade Spacer/WH who supports the Alliance (and in a minor way the Council) and a Renegade Colonist/Ruthless (best combination backgroung imo) who supports (at least at the end of ME2) Cerberus.

[TobyHasEyes]

SandTrout wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 The burden of proof isn't a license to make unproven statements as fact; if I was seeking to prove that their tactic had changed then the burden would be on me

 The point is that we do not know, even when the 'burden of proof' is invoked in defence of a claim it doesn't allow the claim to retain the status of fact

The point is that we know that the Turians did exercise the use of force in an act of conquest upon first contact with Humanity only 40 years ago. We have 0 evidence to suggest that there has been any meaningful change in their culture in that respect since then. It is therefore a reasonable premise of logic to use unless it can be refuted, which it has not been.

You are effectively asking us to prove that something hasn't changed, which is to attempt to prove a negative. All the evidence that we need to make our point is the complete lack of evidence that the Turians have changed at all.

 I am stating that if you intend to say something with such certainty, then it needs to be supported by evidence. As we do not have to hand any way of checking what Turian procedure on this issue is (or whether at the time they were even following procedure) then we should accept that lack of evidence either way and assume a positon of 'we can't know'

 In real life situations, it is not always a fallacy to suggest someone should substantiate a 'negative' claim. It is also not always an attempt to prove you wrong.. it can be a neutral positioning which states that claims of certainty require evidence

[Dariustwinblade]

None, where is the Shadow broker option.

I choose her as my ally, she supported all the way and has the highest amount of intergalactic power. Shepard would do well as the shadow broker or its right hand.

[Dariustwinblade]

I am surprised no one wants to support the shadow broker.

[Xilizhra]

Probably because she's on your side regardless.

[marshalleck]

Dariustwinblade wrote...

I am surprised no one wants to support the shadow broker.

Liara can go die in a fire.

[Xilizhra]

Why so vehement?

[marshalleck]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why so vehement?

Me? You're mistaken. 

Total lack of interest and regard for Liara here. Wouldn't think twice about her painful horrible death.

[eye basher]

I don't know why people keep ****ing,moaning and complaining about no matter what you say,do or scream about your with the Alliance in ME3 nothing will change that.

[nelly21]

I would love the option for Shep to become the new Illusive Man. That would rock so hard.

[Leonia]

eye basher wrote...

I don't know why people keep ****ing,moaning and complaining about no matter what you say,do or scream about your with the Alliance in ME3 nothing will change that.

Kinda missing the intent of the thread. What Shepard feels and thinks (ie: RP!) isn't always going to be in line with what the game presents us with in terms of options. Nobody is trying to state that we won't be working with the Alliance in ME3, rather we are voicing our opinion on who we think Shepard should owe their allegiance to and why.

It's just for fun, dude, chillax.

[The Elder King]

eye basher wrote...

I don't know why people keep ****ing,moaning and complaining about no matter what you say,do or scream about your with the Alliance in ME3 nothing will change that.

I know. And I'm fine with that. But the problem is that Cerberus was the main supporter of Shepard's cause in ME2, and now they're siding with the Reapers. I simply don't like how they decided to develop Cerberus in ME3. I don't have to like everything they're going to do.

edit: and what leonia said.

Modifié par hhh89, 22 septembre 2011 - 03:54 .

[SandTrout]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 I am stating that if you intend to say something with such certainty, then it needs to be supported by evidence. As we do not have to hand any way of checking what Turian procedure on this issue is (or whether at the time they were even following procedure) then we should accept that lack of evidence either way and assume a positon of 'we can't know'

We do have evidence: They conquered Shanxi. When we booted them out of the system, instead of the General in charge getting repremanded and the Turians attempting to establish diplomacy at that point, they began a full scale mobilization, which requires the consent of a lot of high-level Turian leadership.

It's fairly clear that it wasn't a matter of a single rogue Turian general/admiral when the entirety of the Turian Hierarchy is preparing to back them up.

Modifié par SandTrout, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:08 .

[sevach]

eye basher wrote...

I don't know why people keep ****ing,moaning and complaining about no matter what you say,do or scream about your with the Alliance in ME3 nothing will change that.

We will be on an Alliance ship in ME3 sure, but that doesn't mean some of us won't "betray" (i don't think it's a betrayal given that i plan to voice my opinion that, the Alliance can suck it, every chance i get, make it totally clear i'm not doing it for them) them and further someone elses cause when it's time for the big decision of ME3.

[KRAETZNER]

My crew, and Anderson are the only people I trust, but if possible I would like to get the Council, Hacket, and the Illusive Man in one room and get them working together to stop the reapers.

[mango smoothie]

Alliance: My Shepard is a fairly big supporter of the Alliance, but does realize that it's not perfect.

Council: My Shepard doesn't support the council what so ever, he believes its just the powerful races controlling and dictating what everyone else does. Plus he believes the races in the galaxy need to be more independent from each other, only uniting during times of desperate need.

Cerberus: He absolutely hates Cerberus, he is pro human, but doesn't condone Cerberus expeirments or their goal to control the other species. Even though he has this hatred for Cerberus if in ME3 he can at all get Cerberus to help in the end he will. Rather have more people on his side and deal with Cerberus after the Reapers.

Modifié par mango smoothie, 22 septembre 2011 - 11:10 .

[Golden Owl]

darkhorsedan wrote...

I see the opinion of a lot of Shepard's is that they are not pleased with their treatment by the council and the alliance in ME2 but perhaps look at it from their perspective. Shepard turns up out of the blue and arrives in an illegal replica of an alliance vessel that has been made by an organisation that the alliance and the council regards as terrorists. That would be like landing in Washington in a al-qaeda made replica of the Air Force 1 and asking the US military to join forces with you and al-qaeda. Shepard might have had more luck distancing himself from Cerberus first before asking the Council and Alliance for help.

On another note, do we really know how effective the council are at what they do in the grand scheme of things? Most of what we see them do is only what effects us the player and the story, which is mainly in the areas of galactic security (fair enough they could do more to take the Reaper threat seriously in this regards). But we don't know how good or bad they are at the regular business of government. In Revelations there is a bit where Ambassador Goyle reflects on the dealings of the council and she does note for the most part their decisions are fair and the level of bias to the main 3 races is minimal (I wish I had the book to hand for a more accurate quote).

In regards to you first paragraph....This is a part of what I wrote this in the OP of another thread I made 'Shep:Patience of a Saint?'...:


".....*snip*...They all throw accusations at Shep about his/her
affiliation with Cerberus, but none step forward to ask just what in the
hell is happening...this could have led to Shep and Alliance possibly
getting their heads together for the Alliance to requisition the
Normandy, fund Sheps mission themselves and have Shep safely back in
their clutches where they can see exactly what s/he is doing....The
Alliance by sending the VS to Horizon, demonstrated that they also want
to find out about the missing colonies and want to protect them and Shep
is their perfect opportunity....*snip*..."

I can certainly see what you are saying DarkHorse and they are good points....though not enough questions were asked of Shep and he didn't offer enough information as to his current circumstances in ME2....for neither Shep or the Alliance to really be able to take the high ground here on perceptions of events.

As for the Council....firstly in regards to the Reaper threat, I can understand their reluctance about the Reapers, I have taken another snip from same OP in same thread as above:

"....*snip*....Meanwhile, between ME1 and ME2 Shep's died while hunting
Geth....I would have thought really the Alliance might have retrieved
his/her body for a State Funeral, but 'No', the SB picks him/her up
instead, only to have the body stolen via Liara and Feron by
Cerberus....All the while Shep's name being bagged by Council and
Alliance washing their hands of him.....Once again this is
understood....The Galactic Community reacts in a very human way to a
great fear, try to pretend it doesn't exist, deny it....*snip*..."

The Species bias....though it may seem minimal to stronger Species, I think it is still a concern...eg. The Quarians being bombed off a planet...a desperate people in a desperate situation...Yet the Council are not just at worst apathetic towards the Quarians, they have excercised open hostility at the Quarians attempts to home themselves...I personally think that demonstration of such activities is a good impetus for Humanity to be pushing hard for personal representation on the Council ASAP, as the longer humanity rests on it laurels the harder it would be to break through the glass ceiling...we do not want to end up in the same shoes as the minor species....Though the bias may seem minimal to most, the implications can end up quite massive like the Quarians face.